The Intellectual Property Practice and Dispute Resolution Practice of the Law Firm “Levant and Partners” draws attention to several interesting rulings of the Intellectual Property Rights Court.

The first case (A40-124810/2014) concerns the possibility of re-applying to the court if the violation of exclusive rights to a trademark continues.

The defendant illegally used images on the website that were confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks.

The claim was dismissed because the violation was already the subject of a dispute in another case in which the plaintiff received compensation under a settlement agreement.

The Intellectual Property Rights Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for a new trial.

The courts were required to examine the content and duration of the posting of relevant information on the defendant’s website to determine whether the alleged offense was one-time or ongoing.

If the information posted on the site earlier was still there, then in this case it cannot be considered that the plaintiff has exhausted the right to defense. With a different approach, the violator, having paid compensation for violating the exclusive right to a trademark, can subsequently use it with impunity.

In another case (No. SIP-282/2015), the Intellectual Rights Court examined the issue of distinguishing between fantasy trademarks and false marks that mislead the consumer (and therefore are not subject to registration).

The applicant wanted to register the trademark “soft bread” under the category “alcoholic beverages”. Rospatent refused registration, citing that the applied designation was false. It directly indicates the type of product (bread) and its property (soft), which is not true in relation to alcoholic beverages.

But the Presidium of the Intellectual Rights Court recognized this position as erroneous. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not allow registration of designations as trademarks, I represent